Proposed Committee Recommendations
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 ADHO Committees
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 v.2
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 This document was prepared by the ADHO Implementation Committee (IC) for the ADHO Steering Committee following the guidance of the ADHO Governance Proposals and other documents. It is a recommendation for how the ADHO Executive should be structured and the ADHO Foundation document changed.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 This document is a step towards replacing parts of the Governance Protocol with Bylaws and/or Protocols. The idea is that the Steering Committee will review and choose/adapt the recommendations and scenarios below (or send the IC back for more scenarios) at which point the IC will work with the ADHO Secretaries to prepare the appropriate documents like bylaws and protocols for the SC and final approval.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 See Appendix A for a glossary of relevant acronyms.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 The proposed recommendations below were developed based on these principles:
- ¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0
- This document is based on the ADHO Governance proposal approved by ADHO’s Steering Committee July 10, 2016. In the text the term ‘ADHO Governance proposal’ is used and it refers to the document found at http://adho.org/administration/steering/adho-governance-proposals.
- The Mission of ADHO is to provide support for shared activities in the Digital Humanities on behalf of the Constituent Organizations (COs). ADHO’s committee structure should be inclusive, where appropriate and support collaboration between COs.
- Committees should not replace activities undertaken by COs unless that would lead to greater inclusion and collaboration by multiple COs.
- ADHO committees have to be adapted so they can scale as new and different COs join. For the moment the default is to have one representative for each CO, but should the number of COs expand significantly then a rotating membership model might be considered.
- Where possible we should minimize the number and responsibilities of committees so as not to overburden those who volunteer. Additionally, COs are encouraged to have a broad number of volunteers so as to distribute potential service widely across organizations.
- The discussion in this document assumes the creation of an Executive Board (Exec) to take responsibility for operational matters and that the Constituent Organisation Board (COB) takes responsibility for strategy and policy matters.
1. Membership and Admissions Committee
Recommendation 1: The Membership Committee and the Admissions Committee should be merged into one Membership and Admissions Committee. Every CO should have a voting representative on the Committee.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 1 As the members of ADHO are the Constituent Organizations (COs) there needs to be only one committee that deals with the admission and membership of COs. The original Membership committee dealt with the membership of individuals in the COs as a common service through subscription to the journal through Oxford. Individual membership is now a CO responsibility, though ADHO may continue to provide individual membership services to those COs that want to continue using the Oxford mechanism. The guidelines and mandate for the committee would include:
- ¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 1
- Each CO appoints a single representative to the Membership and Admissions Committee (MAC). This representative need not be the CO representative to the COB. (Should Scenario 3 of the Governance proposals be selected then membership on this committee should also include Associate Organizations and SIGs.)
- The MAC will manage itself as it sees fit and select its own Chair.
- The President and Senior Secretary of ADHO will be ex-officio members of the Executive Board on the Committee. Should there be a Vice President, they can replace the President on the Committee.
- The MAC will review applications to join ADHO in order to make recommendations to the COB.
- The MAC can also choose to encourage, advise and mentor the applications of potential COs where there are opportunities to welcome new and appropriate constituencies.
- The MAC can continue to consider those issues around the individual membership in COs that are relevant to ADHO from a policy perspective. These could include continuing to have a shared tool for people to become members in COs and determining how membership is calculated for financial purposes.
- In all cases the Committee makes recommendations to the COB. It does not set policy or execute it.
- In extreme cases the MAC could recommend that a CO cease to be part of ADHO. Such a recommendation might take place when a CO has disbanded or changed its mandate and no longer contributes to ADHO. For example, if a CO chose not to follow the Code of Conduct the MAC could recommend to the COB that it be suspended.
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 In general, ADHO should welcome new COs that represent new constituencies that would benefit from the shared infrastructure that ADHO manages.
2. Publications committee
Recommendation 2: The Publications Committee be disbanded
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 The Implementation Committee recommends that the Publications Committee be disbanded and that the editors of the currently supported publications report directly to the Executive Board of ADHO.
¶ 12 Leave a comment on paragraph 12 0 The publications committee was initially imagined as a committee that would provide oversight over the ADHO supported publications and as a body that could identify gaps in the suite of publications and make recommendations for new publications. To a large extent these functions are no longer needed. Each of the supported publications has its own board for oversight and, now that we have electronic journals like DHQ, there is a full suite of publications. An Executive Board can take annual reports and summarize them for the COB.
Recommendation 3: A Memorandum of Agreement be drawn up with each active publication
¶ 13 Leave a comment on paragraph 13 1 To regularize and document the support provided by ADHO and the reporting expectations of ADHO, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) should be drawn up with each of the active publications. This should should outline the support provided and reporting expected. It should be capable of being renewed. The MOA should be shared with the COB for their information should there be any issues arising.
3. Awards Committee
¶ 14 Leave a comment on paragraph 14 0 The ADHO Awards Committee oversees the following awards:
- ¶ 15 Leave a comment on paragraph 15 0
- Roberto Busa Prize for lifetime/career achievement.
- Antonio Zampolli Prize for a singular project or accomplishment.
- Conference Bursary Awards to assist students or young scholars to present at the annual conference.
- Paul Fortier Prize for the best young scholar paper of the conference.
- Lisa Lena Opas-Hänninen Young Scholar Prize to recognize a young scholar who has contributed in a significant way to scholarship at a humanities conference using digital technology
Recommendation 4: Creation of Three Awards Committees (Busa/Zampolli Committee; Fortier/Bursary Awards Committee; and the Opas-Hanninen Committee)
¶ 16 Leave a comment on paragraph 16 1 The number of ADHO awards have grown significantly in the last ten years. As a result, we recommend that the Awards Committee be divided into three bodies: 1 committee representing the triannual awards of Busa and Zampolli, 1 committee charged with handling awards given on an annual basis associated with the ADHO conference, and 1 committee charged with the Opas-Hanninen prize which works with non-ADHO conference awards to young scholars. All committees will refer their selection to the COB who will be charged with ensuring inclusion and diversity.
¶ 17 Leave a comment on paragraph 17 0 Regarding the constituency of the committees, we recommend that the Busa/Zampolli committee maintain 1 member per CO while all other committees will be staffed on a rotational basis by the COs with ⅓ of the members rotating off each year. The Vice-President or a representative of the Executive will serve as an ex-officio member of all committees to assist with coordination. (Should Scenario 3 from the Governance proposal be selected, it is recommended that AOs and SIGs also receive one seat of representation each.)
Recommendation 5: Annual Publication of Prize Winners and Committee Members
¶ 18 Leave a comment on paragraph 18 0 We recommend the annual recording in the minutes of the COB and publication of both prize winners as well as committee members on these committees.
4. Communications Committee
Recommendation 6: The Communications Committee be disbanded.
¶ 19 Leave a comment on paragraph 19 1 The Implementation Committee recommends that the Communications Committee be disbanded and that the responsibility of communicating all ADHO business should rest with the Secretary (or Secretaries). Those active in ADHO communications, for example, social media officers, should report directly to the Secretaries.
¶ 20 Leave a comment on paragraph 20 0 The Communications Committee was initially established to advise ADHO on overall communications strategies and provide guidance on web, social media, and community visibility, responding to the needs of our inclusive and diverse community. However, this committee structure often gets in the way of rapid and efficient communications and a more streamlined communications strategy with the Secretary at the helm would allow for better communication throughout ADHO. It would be possible to create small working groups for defined tasks, such as a website revamp, which would report to ADHO via the Secretary.
¶ 21 Leave a comment on paragraph 21 1 It should be made clear in the mandate document for the Secretary (or Secretaries) that they are responsible for talking officially on behalf of ADHO.
5. Conference Coordinating Committee
¶ 22 Leave a comment on paragraph 22 2 The Conference Coordinating Committee has “responsibility for developing, improving, and maintaining the “ADHOC conference” (sic) protocol and accompanying guidelines. The CCC also provides in-name sponsorship of digital humanities conferences. Guidelines are provided in the ADHO Conference Coordination Committee Protocols. The committee has a range of documentation including the Memorandum of Understanding Between ADHO and the Local Organizer of a DH Conference; Guidelines for Prospective Local Organizers of Digital Humanities Conferences; ADHO Conference Code of Conduct; Guidelines for Proposal Authors and Reviewers; Annex to the ADHO conference protocol; and the ADHO Conference Protocol. There is currently one member per CO on the CCC, and this is acceptable and should remain. (Should a Governance scenario be selected where membership on the COB includes AOs and SIGs or is scaled to membership, then the COB will need to revisit membership on the CCC.)
Recommendation 7: ADHO Code of Conduct
¶ 23 Leave a comment on paragraph 23 0 The ADHO Conference Code of Conduct is a useful recent addition to the conference, and should be used at the basis for a general ADHO Code of Conduct, which would cover all ADHO activities.
Recommendation 8: Terms of Reference
¶ 24 Leave a comment on paragraph 24 0 The “Annex to the ADHO conference protocol” should be reworked: there should be an independent document covering out the terms of reference of the Conference Coordinating Committee.
Recommendation 9: Revisiting Conference Protocol and Annex, and producing one document that governs the conference
¶ 25 Leave a comment on paragraph 25 0 Other Items contained within the “Annex to the ADHO conference protocol” should be included in the main Conference Protocol, in an updated version. Having two documents injects confusion into the process.
Recommendation 10: List of Reviewers
¶ 26 Leave a comment on paragraph 26 2 In the current protocols, “The CCC maintains and updates a list of reviewers” for the conference. In practice this is usually done by Program Chair to Program Chair. How this procedure works in practice needs to be looked at, including checking for compliance with changes in data protection legislation.
Recommendation 11: Program Chairs Protocol
¶ 27 Leave a comment on paragraph 27 1 To encourage all COs to maintain an active leadership role in the annual conference, we encourage the CCC to create a protocol for the selection of program chairs that allows all COs the opportunity to be selected.
6. Program Committee
¶ 28 Leave a comment on paragraph 28 0 Guidelines regarding the Program Committee are set in the ADHO Conference Protocol and the Annex Protocol. Currently, the PC,
shall consist of not more than 12 and not fewer than 8 voting members – not including the Program Chair or Local Organizer(s) designated by the executive councils of the constituent organizations, as well as the non voting-members listed in item 2.g of the Conference Protocol. Each chapter may designate members up to a maximum specified in this annex; this maximum is determined by identifying an even divisor of a number falling within the number range above. Responsibility for identifying the appropriate number of members and updating this annex accordingly lies with the CCC, subject to the approval of the ADHO steering committee. Designating members of the PC is a right of the constituent organizations, not a requirement. (ADHO Conference Protocol)
- ¶ 30 Leave a comment on paragraph 30 0
- Under the current Annex protocol, the PC is sized between 8-12 members; however, this protocol has not been strictly adhered to in previous PCs. Both 2017 and 2018 PCs were comprised of 13 members. Generally, EADH, ACH, aaDH, and CSDH/SCHN have had 2 representatives to the committee with Humanistica and the other COs comprising the rest of the PC. Additionally, representation by the COs is often imbalanced by the addition of the chair or co-chairs to the PC.
- It is unclear in the current protocol what considerations are given by the Exec (now COB) in considering balance of representation within the PC by the COs—the CCC technically oversees the PC but there is not clarity about the number of positions assigned to COs.
- Consideration needs to be given to the need to have ex-officio, non-voting members like the Outgoing PC Chair, the Incoming PC Chair, and the Conference Coordinating Committee Chair.
- Because COs nominate their own members and there is no official review of the PC by the CCC or the Exec/COB; there is currently nothing in the protocol to address issues of representation, diversity, and balance.
- The current protocols do not account for co-Chairs.
- The custom has been that the PC Chair role rotates between North America-Europe-and then an alternative CO (aaDH, for example). However, there is no prescription for this rotation nor is there clarity about how to handle chairs when the location is overlapping (e.g. Humanistica and CSDH/SCHN) or when the location repeats within the same terrain (e.g. DH2017 and DH2020 are CSDH/SCHN—CSDH/SCHN has offered co-chair position to ACH).
Recommendation 12: The size of the PC be increased to a maximum of 18 members nominated by the COs and selected by the COB
¶ 31 Leave a comment on paragraph 31 0 Given that ADHO will likely increase to 9 COs in the near future, we recommend increasing the size of the PC to 18 members (9 COs x 2 members each). This will allow for clear parity as well as provide greater distribution of the increased workload that has been noted with the continuing growth in number of submissions and the complexity of the program. Further guidelines would include:
- ¶ 32 Leave a comment on paragraph 32 0
- Each CO should nominate at least 3 members to serve on the PC. The COB will review all nominations and select the final 2 per CO with an eye towards diversity and representation within the PC as a whole. (Should a Governance scenario be selected where membership on the COB includes AOs and SIGs or is scaled to membership, then the COB will need to revisit membership on the PC.)
- Given that protocols now clearly require the distinction between the PC Chair and the Local Organizing Chair, we recommend that each Program Committee now elect 2 members from the finalized 18 to serve as co-Chairs.
- Within the PC, we encourage the creation of a subcommittee specifically to address pre-conference tutorials, workshops, and other peer-reviewed events that sit outside the main program. Potentially, this could be a four member subcommittee working within the PC.
7. Standing Committee on Multi-Lingualism and Multi-Cultural Committee (SCMLMC)
¶ 33 Leave a comment on paragraph 33 0 Guidelines regarding the Standing Committee on Multi-Lingualism and Multi-Cultural Committee (SCMLMC) can be found in the Revised Protocol for the Standing Committee on Multi-Lingualism & Multi-Culturalism. The Committee is “charged with developing and promoting policies in ADHO and its constituent organizations that will help them to become more linguistically and culturally inclusive…”
Recommendation 13: The Protocol for the Standing Committee on Multi-Lingualism and Multi-Culturalism stay as it is
¶ 34 Leave a comment on paragraph 34 1 The Revised Protocol only editing to replace out of date language like “Steering Committee” with “COB”. Should a Governance scenario be selected where membership on the COB includes AOs and SIGs or is scaled to membership, then the COB will need to revisit membership on the SCMLMC.
8. Infrastructure Committee
¶ 35 Leave a comment on paragraph 35 0 Guidelines regarding the Standing Committee on Web Infrastructure (ISC) can be found in the Protocol for the Standing Committee on Web Infrastructure (ISC) of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations (ADHO). The Committee is charged with “the creation and maintenance of a web infrastructure that can be shared by all ADHO COs…”
Recommendation 14: The Standing Committee on Web Infrastructure stay as it is
¶ 36 Leave a comment on paragraph 36 2 The Protocol only editing to replace out of date language like “Steering Committee” with “COB”.
9. Ad-Hoc Committees
¶ 37 Leave a comment on paragraph 37 0 The COB should be encouraged to create Ad-Hoc committees with limited responsibilities to deal with unforeseen issues. Such committees are an alternative to creating more permanent committees and should be time-limited. Such committees should have a clear mandate and should report to the Executive Board though they may also be empowered to make recommendations to the COB.
Recommendation 15: The COB has the power to create and disband Ad-Hoc Committees with limited mandates
¶ 38 Leave a comment on paragraph 38 0
Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms
¶ 39 Leave a comment on paragraph 39 0 AADH: The Australasian Association for Digital Humanities
¶ 40 Leave a comment on paragraph 40 0 ACH: Association for Computers and the Humanities
¶ 41 Leave a comment on paragraph 41 0 ADHO: Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations
¶ 42 Leave a comment on paragraph 42 0 AIUCD: Associazione per l’Informatica Umanistica e le Culture Digitali
¶ 43 Leave a comment on paragraph 43 0 AO: Associate Organizations
¶ 44 Leave a comment on paragraph 44 0 CO: Constituent Organizations
¶ 45 Leave a comment on paragraph 45 0 COB: Constituent Organization Board
¶ 46 Leave a comment on paragraph 46 0 CSDH/SCHN: Canadian Society for Digital Humanities/ Société canadienne des humanités numériques
¶ 47 Leave a comment on paragraph 47 0 DHd: Digital Humanities im deutschsprachigen Raum (DH in German-speaking Regions)
¶ 48 Leave a comment on paragraph 48 0 DHN: Digital humaniora i Norden (Nordic DH)
¶ 49 Leave a comment on paragraph 49 0 DHQ: Digital Humanities Quarterly journal
¶ 50 Leave a comment on paragraph 50 0 DS: Digital Scholarship journal
¶ 51 Leave a comment on paragraph 51 0 DSH: Digital Scholarship in the Humanities journal
¶ 52 Leave a comment on paragraph 52 0 EADH: European Association for Digital Humanities
¶ 53 Leave a comment on paragraph 53 0 IC: ADHO Implementation Committee
¶ 54 Leave a comment on paragraph 54 0 JADH: Japanese Association for Digital Humanities
¶ 55 Leave a comment on paragraph 55 0 MoA: Memorandum of Agreement
¶ 56 Leave a comment on paragraph 56 0 SC: ADHO Steering Committee
¶ 57 Leave a comment on paragraph 57 0 SIG: Special Interest Groups
Do we really need to make explicit reference to Oxford University Press in this document? It’s just the technical solution (and could be replaced), not the basic principle.